Stimulated:  'Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) belittled the negotiations on trimming the bill, calling them "discussions being held behind closed doors between two or three or four Republicans" and a group of Democrats with the aim of getting a filibuster-proof 60 votes to pass the legislation.

"Obviously, the overwhelming majority of Republican senators are opposed to this legislation," McCain said. "This is not a stimulus bill. It is a spending bill full of unnecessary spending."  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020602097_2.html?hpid=topnews

Non-vital spending is vital to a stimulus, Johnny.  That's how the WPA and CCC worked in the New Deal; the projects weren't critically urgent programmatically, but economically and morally they were most, most pressing and they comforted the neediest.  The majority of Republican senators backed our last President to the hilt, our worst leader since the 1800s and probably worst ever, so you irremediably embarass yourself even *daring* to lectue us about how your disgraced majority feels, having been so virulently spat upon in the polling booths.  You admit you know nothing of economics, but this week you brazenly proposed a nincompoop bill of of tax cuts only, the same approach as the Failed President you so inartfully sought to succede.  You and that mouthy pinhead Sarah  whom you selected, that is. 

In economics, okay, you understanding nothing, but how about logic?  Endless tax cuts played a monster role in getting us into this near-catastrophe, and now you want what, more tax cuts?  Does that make any sense on any level, Johnny-boy?   Huh?

To think you could have been elected President!  One shudders!!

Susan Collins (R, Me.) is attacking the details, proposing to rip up out up to $200 billion in all sorts of basic appropriations (computers for Dep't of Agriculture, for example) that have debatable stimulus value (I said debatable, not negligible), and working with Ben Nelson (D, Ne.) to try to get there. 

If Obama the campaigner were to see this, he'd be proud.  Both teams working to get a result that a bipartisan majority can vote for comfortably.  Some saying they all need to sit down in a room together.  The hard core (I called them out yesterday) may have no use for this, but guess what, he's made inroads. 

He's built real relationships with Republicans, many of whom are mad at Dems in Congress and want him to step in.  That's right, they may not agree with a lot of what he's got to say, but they like him, they respect him, and they think they can get a fair deal with him.  They think they can govern with him.  What a concept! 

Oh, the nominations?  Yeah, a bit of a drag, no doubt.  But "I screwed up?"?  I think that's going to be a net plus.  Imagine, a President happy to tell you when he "screwed up!"  A post-partisan anthem, talk about something new and goddam different!!

Here are the good members who voted against Holder's confirmation.  21 'mater-juice red solons, with ALL of our recent favorites reliably on the list.   I suspect this vote offers a pretty good stalking horse in giving one a glimpse of the impossible-to-get Dixie/ruralist voting bloc.  Oh, I know it was a *complicated* vote and all (ahem), but I suggest one be wary any time one of these reactionaries claims his vote is based on a lot of legislative analysis and Senatorial contemplation.

Full list of Yeas (75) and Nays, http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00032.  Even Senator John Kyl (R-Az) with his 97.01 lifetime rating http://www.acuratings.org/  from the American Conservative Union voted Yea, so I suppose we are talking about a pretty implacable crew, above.